Although no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq this time around, the same cannot be said of the 1991 Gulf War.  In fact, in March of that year, two large ammunition caches, including rockets, were blown up by American soldiers in Khamisiyah, Iraq.

At the time, it was assumed these munitions were simply conventional explosives. Following the operation, military personnel who had been present in the area showed no signs of chemical exposure.

Unfortunately, when the area was examined by U.N. weapons inspectors, it was discovered that some of the weapons that had been detonated had contained the deadly neurotoxin, sarin.

Sarin is a man-made chemical warfare nerve agent.  Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. In sufficient concentrations, exposure to sarin can result in convulsions and death.

On March 20, 1995, for the first time, terrorists used a chemical warfare agent (sarin) against a civilian population by releasing it in the Tokyo subway system causing over 5500 people to seek medical attention.

As a result of the discovery in Iraq, some 300,000 veterans who were in the general area of the demolition operation have been contacted by the military. Due to wind patterns at the time, the “hazard area” extended as far as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Of the 325,467 veterans deployed in Iraq, it was determined that 100,487 could have been exposed to some extent to the hazard area while 224,980 had not been exposed to the risk.

The study, commissioned by the military and published in the August issue of American Journal of Public Health, was conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM advises the federal government on health policy.
While, for most diseases, the two groups showed no difference in mortality rates, the one exception was for death from brain cancer where the differences were remarkable.

In the exposed group, the risk of death from brain cancer was 200% that found in the unexposed group. Moreover, a one-day exposure to the chemical munitions increased the risk by 72% while an exposure of two or more days increased the risk by 226%.

While the risks in the unexposed group (12/100,000) and the exposed group (25/100,000) were both small, a 200% increase is nonetheless considered significant by experts. In fact, the study was referred to as “very solid” by Professor Faith Davis of the University of Illinois-Chicago who stated: “It needs to be taken seriously.”

Some experts are intrigued by the apparent link between only one or two days of exposure and so large an increase in brain cancer mortality while others see it as having value in the search for the causes of brain tumors, a subject which, to a great extent, remains a medical mystery. In fact, sarin has never been shown to cause cancer.

You would imagine that the most experienced, highly trained, and reliable segment of the workforce would be at the top of every employer’s wish list when a position which demands those very qualities becomes available. Well, what you imagine and what really happens are two very different things in today’s job market.

If you are over 50 and looking for a job, “age bias” is your worst enemy.  It’s a form of “profiling” that would bring swift legal action if an employer was foolish enough to mention the issue in an interview or as a determining factor in filling a position. Unfortunately, it’s a form of bias that is easily hidden by prospective employers.

Telling an applicant that he or she is “overqualified” is often the easy way out of an uncomfortable situation where the best qualified candidate simply doesn’t fit the prime hiring age of 25 to 39.

There are a number of factors involved in creating the predisposition against hiring older workers even when they are the best qualified for the position. These include:

•    Older workers are prone to health problems which lead to more absences and higher health insurance costs.
•    Older, more experienced workers command higher salaries than younger, less experienced workers.
•    Older workers cannot be factored into a company’s long-term employment needs.
•    Older workers are “out of touch” with technological advances and do not fit in with younger workers who tend to be more computer literate.
•    Older workers with extensive experience tend to make younger supervisors and managers uncomfortable.

On the other side of the equation, however, are many reasons why older applicants may be far more qualified for many positions for which they are not being seriously considered.

•    Older workers bring enormous experience and confidence to a position.
•    Older workers do not need to be trained or monitored as extensively as those with less (or no) experience.
•     Older workers often stabilize a younger workforce and serve as mentors to younger coworkers.
•    Older workers tend to have a strong work ethic and pride themselves on their reliability.
•    People are living longer which makes the average work-life expectancy greater. Thus, older workers tend to be available for much longer tenures than in the past.
•    Recent massive corporate failures, bankruptcies, and scandals have left highly competent older workers, who had been near or at retirement age, in need of full- or part-time employment to recover from devastating losses to their savings, pension plans, or stock holdings. In short, these people really need the work and will do whatever is necessary to hold a job.

Many business writers and those familiar with the subject like Lore Croghan (New York Daily News), Betsy Cummings (How to Find a Job After 50: From Part-Time to Full-Time, from Career Moves to New Careers – Warner Business Books [Fall 2005]), Renee Ward (founder of Seniors4Hire.org [http://www.seniors4hire.org/]), The Five O’Clock Club (http://www.fiveoclockclub.com/), and the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons [http://www.aarp.org/]) have given a voice to older workers through their efforts to publicize the problem and/or assist in job searches and placement.

Another not-for-profit organization which has been in the forefront of assisting “highly skilled and experienced executives, managers, and professionals who are actively seeking employment” is Forty Plus of New York, Inc. (www.FortyPlus.com).  

Established in New York in 1939, the group “is a cooperative enterprise in which members share their knowledge and skills to reach a common objective: landing a job matched to each individual’s background and capabilities.” The success of the New York chapter led to the creation of other Forty Plus offices in some 21 cities in the United States and Canada.

Richard Calderhead, Chairman of Forty Plus of New York, acknowledged that: “There is plenty of actual bias out in larger corporations. Younger means cheaper and corporate cost-cutting is rampant.” He was quick to point out, however, that at Forty Plus of New York, “we build on the invaluable experience our members offer employers.”  In the end, regardless of what might appear to be important considerations, “nothing trumps experience.”

Another serious problem faced by older job seekers is discouragement. At Forty Plus of New York, weekly membership meetings, peer-review sessions, resume development, one-on-one counseling, and an upbeat, positive atmosphere help members avoid the doldrums and remain focused on the task at hand.

Networking skills are also stressed since, according to Calderhead, “over 70% of jobs are now influenced by Networking and not simplistic answers like broadcasting resumes.”
   
In the end, however, it would seem that, regardless of their experience, qualifications, and abilities, older job seekers must overcome one major obstacle their younger counterparts do not face, age bias and discrimination.

The Brazilian government has refused to back off of its threat to break the patent Abbott Laboratories hold on the AIDS drug, Kaletra unless Abbott agrees to reduce the price of the drug significantly.

On June 24, then Brazilian Health Minister, Humberto Costa announced that the price of the anti-AIDS drug Kaletra was so high that it posed a risk to public health. Under Brazilian law, when such an emergency is declared, the government has the authority to ignore the patent held by U.S. based Abbott Laboratories in order to allow generic copies of the drug to be made in the country’s state-run lab in Rio de Janeiro.

Abbott was given 10 days to cut the price of the drug to an affordable level for the 600,000 Brazilians who suffer from HIV/AIDS.

Abbott claimed it was already selling its drugs in Brazil at a financial loss and argued the move would not be in the long-term best interests of patients. It showed it was taking the ultimatum seriously though when it stated it was “willing to work with the government to find a mutually agreeable solution.”

Brazil has won international praise for its policy of providing free anti-retroviral drugs to anyone who needs them. By pressuring a major pharmaceutical company to lower its price, even on one important drug, Brazil sent a strong message to an industry that has always placed profit above compassion.

For two weeks, Abbott Labs attempted to take the position that it would not be bullied into cutting its price by Brazil. As the deadline approached, however, Abbott realized the government would not back down on its threat to break Abbott’s patent on the most prescribed protease inhibitor used in the treatment of HIV.

Thus, in order to protect its intellectual property in a drug with 10 years remaining on its patent, on July 8 Abbott Labs flinched and rolled back the price of the drug to a point where it was apparently acceptable to the Brazilian government.

Although the financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed, Abbott indicated the price would be calculated on the number of people using the drug instead of per-capsule. Brazil’s Health Ministry stated that the new agreement would save Brazil $18 million next year and $259 million during the next six years.

A week later, however, the agreement, which was commended for avoiding a trade dispute and which both parties considered a triumph, is still unsettled.  

As Brazil’s new health Minister Jose Saraiva Felipe took office he discovered “that no deal had been sanctioned.” He said in an interview with the Correio Brazilinese newspaper “I thought that the question was closed but it was still open.”

Felipe reported that no contract has been signed with Abbott and that negotiations would continue, as the current proposal does not sufficiently reduce the price per pill over the course of the next fives years.

The head of Brazil’s AIDS treatment program, Pedro Chequer, noted that nothing had been done to finalize any agreement. Chequer was pleased by this since “what Abbott proposed is not what we understand is in the interests of our country. Abbott has to come up with a new proposal.”

Abbott confirmed the ongoing nature of the negotiations and the lack of a final agreement.

If Abbott does not comply and make the drugs accessible to Brazil’s HIV/AIDS patients, Felipe says the breaking of the patent is still a final alternative. Brazil claims it could start producing the drug itself for about 40 cents per pill. Abbott is now charging the government $1.20 per pill.

Doctors have known for some time that many patients simply do not follow the instructions on their prescriptions. Elderly patients and those taking several different drugs seem to have the most difficulty when it comes to following instructions.

Now, a British doctor has come up with an approach to prescription labels that encourage people to take a more active role in looking after their health as well as providing a greater measure of safety.

Dr. Nigel Masters of Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire (U.K.) adds brief phrases to prescription labels which indicate what the drug does or for what purpose it is being prescribed.

Dr. Masters finds that this approach helps patients understand why they should keep taking their medications. It also helps explain the relationship between different drugs when a patient has multiple prescriptions.

Finally, it helps his elderly patients more easily remember to take their medication since they can remember the reason why a certain medicine is being taken rather than have to remember drugs by name.

The idea has been welcomed by Developing Patient Partnerships who see it as a “simple approach” that “offers patients the opportunity to be more involved with their health and to take more control over managing their medicines as well as improving safety.”

Dr. Masters also includes health check reminders on drugs which require regular tests like “check blood pressure yearly.” Drugs for conditions which may be embarrassing or sensitive carry less direct wording like “to prevent ED” (erectile dysfunction).

Although patients may choose to omit the additional information very few have done so. Pharmacists also approve of the idea which has been nominated for this year’s Medical Futures Innovations Awards.

Eventually, the goal is to computerize the system so that more doctors can use it without any additional effort on their part when they write prescriptions.    

For several years now there has been a growing concern among independent experts that the pre-approval process used to determine the suitability of a new drug for marketing is getting worse instead of better.

Since the late 1990s, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of drugs which have had to be withdrawn from the market. The institution of an industry-funded a “fast track” drug approval process has lead to inadequately tested drugs being rushed to market and the need for more and more serious (“black box”) warnings.

Many drugs which have caused widespread injuries or deaths have been unceremoniously pulled from the market not long after their release. Some of the more recent “failures” in the longevity department are: • Tysabri – 4 months; Lotronex – 9 months; Duract – 11 months; Posicor – 12 months; Redux – 17 months ; Raplon – 19 months; Raxar – 23 months; Baycol – 27 months; Rezulin – 38 months; and Baycol – 50 months.

One in five new drugs has serious side effects that do not show up until well after FDA approval. This often results from what many experts see as two serious flaws in the current “fast track” or “accelerated” approval process, namely, the lack of longitudinal (long-term) testing and the use of test groups which are far too small to represent an accurate sampling of the true range of patients who are likely to take the drugs being tested.

Significantly, in a high percentage of situations, problems develop either; (1) after patients have taken a drug for greater periods of time than the test groups, or (2) in segments of the population which were never included in the test groups at all or, at least not in a sufficient representative sample size.

Moreover, today’s drugs are being marketed without dosing charts or information with respect to the well-known fact that each person will metabolize a drug differently.

The pharmaceutical industry has also largely ignored the developing science with respect to “pharmacogenetics” which is the branch of genetics that studies the variations in responses to drugs based on individual genes.

These genetically determined differences in reactions to a given drug cannot be properly studied or determined when small test groups are exposed to a drug for a very short test period.   

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also placed itself in a compromising position by accepting huge sums of money from the pharmaceutical industry to fund the agency’s Office of New Drugs which is now expected to “fast-track” drugs to market. That division has about 740 employees.

Unfortunately, no such funding is given to the FDA for post-approval monitoring of adverse reactions and side-effects by the Office of Drug Safety which only has about 112 employees.

Fast-track approvals, which are usually based on short-term testing of small test groups, have had disastrous results when used for drugs which are specifically designed for long-term or lifetime use by large segments of the population.   

Experts fear the pre-approval lack of long-term studies and the use of relatively small test groups can only lead to significant post-approval problems when less common or delayed side-effects become apparent.

At this time, however, it appears that the FDA is unwilling to admit it may have a problem when it comes to approving drugs based on insufficient clinical tests.

According to the director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs, Dr. John Jenkins, the agency has no plans to act on suggestions from several experts that it request drug manufacturers to conduct larger clinical studies in the pre-approval process in order to detect serious, but less common, side-effects.

Jenkins claimed there might be “unintended consequences to what sounds like an easy, good idea.” One example would be to delay access to new therapies.

Of course, if a new therapy makes it to market on the basis of a fast-track approval and then must be pulled from the market almost immediately due to the emergence of side-effects that were not detected because of inadequacies in the clinical study process, what purpose was served by rushing the approval in the first place?

Teflon has become so accepted as an everyday product that the word itself has become an adjective. Like “Scotch” tape (instead of cellophane tape) and “Xerox” copies (instead of photo static copies) before it, Teflon has been associated with people who seem to be able to escape blame or negative publicity as in the cases of John Gotti, the “Teflon” Don, and Ronald Reagan, the “Teflon” President.

Unfortunately for E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., the chemical giant that invented Teflon 50 years ago, the nonstick nature of the product does not seem to be protecting the company from a steadily-growing mountain of evidence, litigation, studies, and investigations calling Teflon’s safety into question.

For the past two years, there has been a growing concern over the safety of the manmade chemical known as C8 or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) which can be found in everything from bread to birds, green beans to ground beef, dolphins to drinking water, and in the blood of up to 96% of the population of the United States.

The acid is used to manufacture Teflon coating for cookware and hundreds of other products like telephone cables, carpets, clothing, computer chips, chemical piping, and automobile fuel systems. Since there are no known “natural” sources of C8, scientists are curious as to how the chemical enters the environment. C8 has also contaminated the groundwater in areas where Teflon is manufactured.  

DuPont, which also pioneered the development of PFOA and continues to dominate its use, claims that the chemical is harmless to humans. It also disputes that C8 is released during normal cooking (as opposed to overheating).

Others are not so sure that either assertion is true. Studies have concluded that C8 is one of several toxic gases released by Teflon when it is heated to temperatures which, at their low end, are only slightly above normal cooking temperatures.

C8 has been shown to cause tumors in rats and fumes from Teflon coated cookware can cause what is known as “polymer fume fever,” a condition which has been shown to kill birds even at low temperatures but which DuPont claims is harmless to humans if the cookware is used at a temperature of up to 500F. When Teflon is overheated (above 700F), fatal cases of polymer fume fever in humans have occurred (at 842F).

Last August, DuPont agreed to pay up to $343 million in settlement of a class action arising out of the contamination of drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia linked to its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

Of that amount, most of the $107 million to be paid for damages to the water supply of some 50,000 people living near the plant will be used to fund a detailed scientific review and a landmark community health study with respect to the dangers posed by C8.  Up to another $235 million is to be set aside for future medical monitoring if the studies find C8 can make people sick.

The company also announced that it plans to dramatically decrease the use of PFOA in Teflon coatings by the end of 2006.

With these announcements, DuPont hoped the worst was over for its lucrative Teflon business which nets a reported $200 million in profit a year.   

In 2005, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that tests on laboratory animals linked PFOA to liver, pancreatic, and testicular cancer, reduced birth weight, birth defects, and immune suppression.
The EPA also found that elevated cholesterol and triglycerides were a risk of exposure to C8. As a result, the EPA stated that low-level exposure to PFOA could pose a “potential risk of developmental and other adverse effects” in humans.  

Earlier this year, the EPA released a draft assessment of a chemical used in the production of Teflon which, based on animal studies, found “suggestive evidence” that the substance may be a human carcinogen.
In May, the Justice Department has issued grand jury subpoenas seeking documents from DuPont with respect to PFOA and related chemical compounds. The suspicion is that DuPont withheld critical information concerning possible health risks posed by PFOA.

A 1961 internal document indicated that DuPont scientists had already warned company executives to avoid human contact with PFOA. DuPont faces more than $300 million in fines if it is found guilty of withholding such information.

Even DuPont’s shareholders are now demanding that the company fully disclose all legal and expert fees, media and lobbying expenses related to PFOA.

Dupont is attempting to settle the EPA claim and has set aside $15 million for that purpose.  To date, however, no agreement has been finalized.

Then, earlier this month, a draft report released by an independent EPA scientific advisory board which reviewed the earlier EPA assessment and which will now be submitted to the EPA, concluded that PFOA (C8) is “likely” to be a human carcinogen and, as a result, the EPA should conduct cancer risk assessments for a variety of tumors found in rats and mice exposed to it.

This latest finding is seen by environmental advocacy groups as significant since it will increase the pressure on the EPA to conduct human health risk assessments for a variety of cancers as well as potential toxic effects on the human immune system.

Another startling revelation was reported in the Charleston Gazette on July 10. According to an April 2004 sworn statement by Dr. Bruce Karrh, DuPont’s former medical director, the company found similar birth defects in two of eight children born to women who worked at the Parkersburg chemical plant 25 years ago.

According to the Charleston Gazette article: “A DuPont researcher said the number was ‘significantly greater’ than the expected rate of birth defects in the general population. In April 1981, the researcher proposed that DuPont do a detailed study to determine if exposure to the toxic chemical C8 was to blame. Three months later, DuPont officials dropped the study, a former top corporate doctor has testified.

Dupont officials also decided not to report its preliminary findings to federal regulators, according to the testimony, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act…‘To my knowledge, it was never reported to EPA, and, to my knowledge, I didn’t ask anybody whether it was reported,’ Karrh said of the birth defects data.”   
 
Finally (for now), two Florida law firms filed class-action lawsuits on July 19, charging DuPont with concealing the potential health hazards associated with Teflon nonstick cookware coatings. The lawsuits were filed in a number of federal district courts.

The relief being sought includes monetary damages to class members, the creation of a fund for medical monitoring of consumers who have bought and used products containing Teflon, and placing warning labels on Teflon coated cookware.

Although DuPont announced it intends to “vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuit,” the mounting problems for Teflon (and C8) may no longer be of the nonstick variety. 

As if the threats posed by Avian (Bird) Flu, West Nile Virus, Marburg Virus, SARS, Legionnaires’ disease, and HIV/AIDS were not enough to worry the average person, reports out of Beijing now indicate a new, and apparently quite deadly, mystery illness has appeared.

In southwestern China, some 58 farmers have been stricken with a flu-like illness that has killed 17. The symptoms include high fever, fatigue, nausea, hemorrhaging, and vomiting followed by coma and bruises under the skin.

Only 2 of those affected have recovered while 12 remain in critical and 27 in stable condition. Medical experts have not seen any evidence that the illness is spreading or signs of an epidemic.

The cause of the illness remains a mystery although it seems clear that all of the cases are associated with the butchering of sick pigs or sheep. Because of this factor, health officials suspect some type of bacterial infection is involved. One possibility is that the illness may be caused by streptococcus suis, a bacteria typically spread by pigs.

A spokesman for the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that it did not appear that this situation was related to the viral disease known as avian (bird) flu.

The victims appear to have suffered from poisoning-related shock syndrome and were acutely infected according to an unidentified worker at one of the hospitals where some of the victims were being treated.

Hong Kong has issued an alert to its hospitals to be on the lookout for any patient who presents with symptoms similar to those suffered by the mainland Chinese patients. In 2003, some 299 people in Hong Kong were killed by SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) which originated on the mainland.

Sometimes a simple idea provides an effective way to deal with a serious problem. In these troubled times, anyone can find themselves in a situation where they may be unable to notify relatives or loved ones that they have been involved in some type of emergency.

An accident, illness, or criminal act may leave a person seriously injured, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate with emergency personnel. Missing identification may only add to the problem.

Now, Britons are being urged to store the names and numbers of those they wish to be contacted  in their cell phone speed dial directory under ICE ("in case of emergency").

Currently there is a British advertising campaign for ICE that was started after paramedic Bob Brotchie came up with the idea after realizing injuries prevented many of his patients from saying who should be contacted by emergency officials.

A definite listing under ICE would immediately allow emergency personnel to be certain that they are contacting the actual person the victim wanted contacted in an emergency.

People could also store alternative numbers under ICE2, ICE3, and so on thereby giving rescue, or medical personnel additional contacts in the event that the primary person is unreachable. 

According to a spokesman for its Office of Emergency Management, the City of New York might consider the idea as well.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a health warning on Friday not to eat the liver sausage, pickled pork, ham, sausage, or bratwurst sold by the German Meat and Sausage Deli of Tatla Lake, British Columbia.

The products, which are packed in 0.245 kg cans, may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum the bacteria responsible for botulism.

Botulism is a life-threatening illness caused by the build-up of toxins produced by Clostridium botulinum bacteria. It is important to note that foods contaminated by botulism may not look or smell spoiled. Thus, any food even suspected of being contaminated should not be consumed by humans or animals.

Although botulism is extremely dangerous and sometimes fatal, there have not been any reports of illness connected with these particular products to date.

For more information, contact the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at 1-800-442-2342 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. local time - Monday to Friday or check its health alert online at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/recarapp/2005/20050722be.shtml.

In a case that has taken a number of unexpected twists and turns only after the actual trial ended, a federal judge has allowed six public interest groups to intervene in the litigation in order to argue for the imposition of damages and penalties against the tobacco industry which far exceed those requested by the Justice Department itself.

Although the defendants strongly opposed the highly unusual post-trial intervention of non-parties in the litigation, the court was inclined to allow it so that they could make the case that the government had not properly represented the interests of the public. The groups include the American Cancer Society, the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, and the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network.

As previously reported, from the instant the federal government literally bailed out of its civil racketeering case by inexplicably scaling back its long-standing damage demand from $130 billion to just $10 billion, every anti-smoking activist has cried “foul.”

On June 30, the aforementioned health advocacy groups filed a motion with U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler to join the litigation for the limited purpose of presenting “arguments solely on the issue of the appropriate and necessary remedies that should be imposed in this case.”

Judge Kessler, who is presiding over this nonjury case, will make a determination as to the amount of the award, if any, after all filings on the issue are complete.

Amid great speculation and controversy as to its underlying motivations, the Justice Department filed its formal damage request motion on June 29. The $10 billion for a five-year stop-smoking program and a ten-year $4 billion for an anti-smoking education program is all that is being asked of an industry that stands accused of a decades-long conspiracy of fraud on the public and government agencies.   

The manner in which the trial came to an end immediately raised questions as to what motivated the dramatic and unexpected last-minute shift in the government’s position with respect to the amount of damages it was seeking in this six-year-old civil racketeering case. The allegations against the tobacco industry included engaging in a 50-year conspiracy to defraud and addict smokers by intentionally concealing information regarding the dangers associated with smoking.   

For years, the government has pursued the tobacco industry for “a decades-long pattern of material misrepresentations, half-truths, deceptions and lies that continue to this day.” (Excerpt from summation of Associate Attorney General Sharon Eubanks.)
 
The monetary damages the government had always been expected to demand from the industry was based on the extensive testimony of expert witnesses and was anticipated to be a $130-billion, 25-year smoking cessation program along with other penalties and injunctive relief prohibiting tobacco companies from targeting young smokers in their marketing campaigns.

Much of the evidence presented by the government was comprised of highly incriminating internal documents that included written memos from tobacco executives and scientists which described plans to encourage young people to smoke and to keep the public ignorant of the potentially dangerous and addictive nature of cigarette smoke.

Even Judge Kessler questioned the reduction in the demand as suggesting “that there are some additional influences being brought to bear on the government’s position in this case.” This uneasiness by the trial judge was among the reasons given for granting the motion to intervene along with a concern regarding the “lack of clarity and finality about those changes.”

Less than a month before summations, the Justice Department had filed an extensive legal brief with the trial judge which argued that the $130 billion smoking-cessation program was an appropriate and legally permissible sanction that was unaffected by the recent federal appeals court ruling that determined the government could not seek to force the tobacco industry to pay $280 billion in ill-gotten gains.

Following the unexpected shift in the Justice Department’s position, a group of 50 lawmakers sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez requesting that he not enter into any agreement with the tobacco industry “based on the unreasonably weak demands made by the government last week.”

Based upon the abandonment of the Justice Department’s previously aggressive stance with respect to damages and penalties, the attorneys for the tobacco industry defendants have requested Judge Kessler to throw out the entire case claming the government is not entitled to any of the remedies it now seeks to have imposed.

In granting the motion, Judge Kessler stated that: "in a case of this magnitude . . . it will serve the public interest for major public health organizations, who have long experience with smoking and health issues, to contribute their perspectives on what appropriate and legally permissible remedies may be imposed should liability be found."

While the groups that have been permitted to intervene will be allowed to argue for a larger fund to provide smoking-cessation programs to a broader range of smokers, they will not be allowed to introduce any new evidence on the issue.